Connect with us
tesla logo tesla logo

News

Tesla hit with $1.27M subrogation claim from State Farm in 2020 house fire

Published

on

Tesla has been hit with a $1.27 million subrogation claim filed by State Farm related to a house fire that heavily damaged a home in Carmel, Indiana in 2020. State Farm claims that a “defect in design or manufacture” of the couple’s 2016 Tesla Model S started the fire, and is seeking the $1.27 million payout, along with any “other further relief as this Court deems equitable and just.”

On February 17, 2020, two years and one day before the case was filed by State Farm, a fire erupted at the residence of the Sencaj’s in Carmel, Indiana. The suit says the family drove the Model S around that day to complete various errands, later returning home and attaching the vehicle to the charger installed in the garage. State Farm says in the suit, “Investigation into the origin and cause of the Fire by STATE FARM, and experts retained to investigate on its behalf, revealed the Fire originated at the Tesla and was caused by a defective condition of the vehicle, which was present when the vehicle was placed into the stream of commerce by Defendant Tesla.”

The insurance firm then added, “Due to a defect in design or manufacture, upon information and belief, the Tesla vehicle’s electrical system failed, causing an electrical condition which ignited combustibles and resulted in the Fire.”

State Farm was obligated to pay approximately $1,271,702.26 to the Sencaj family “for fire-related damage to the Sencaj residence and its contents, additional living expenses incurred by the Sencaj family, and fire damage to the vehicles,” the documents say, according to RDN.

Advertisement

Subrogation is a legal term for a right held by insurance carriers to pursue a third party that caused an insurance loss to the insured.

The suit aims to find Tesla negligent in one of many terms, most of which have to do with the design, manufacturing, and assembly of components, battery packs, cells, or other related parts. State Farm says there are at least twenty ways Tesla showed negligence. The actions stem from negligence through its employees, agents, and/or representatives, and directly was negligent by letting an “unreasonably dangerous and defective” vehicle into the stream of commerce.

State Farm is seeking $1,271,702.26 and “other further relief as this Court deems equitable and just.”

Case No. 2022-CV-00342, State Farm vs. Tesla, Inc, is in the U.S. District Court of Indiana, Southern District is available below.

Advertisement

State Farm v Tesla by Joey Klender on Scribd

I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.

Advertisement

Joey has been a journalist covering electric mobility at TESLARATI since August 2019. In his spare time, Joey is playing golf, watching MMA, or cheering on any of his favorite sports teams, including the Baltimore Ravens and Orioles, Miami Heat, Washington Capitals, and Penn State Nittany Lions. You can get in touch with joey at joey@teslarati.com. He is also on X @KlenderJoey. If you're looking for great Tesla accessories, check out shop.teslarati.com

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla China January wholesale sales rise 9% year-on-year

Tesla reported January wholesale sales of 69,129 China-made vehicles, as per data released by the China Passenger Car Association.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla China

Tesla China reported January wholesale sales of 69,129 Giga Shanghai-made vehicles, as per data released by the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA). The figure includes both domestic sales and exports from Gigafactory Shanghai.

The total represented a 9.32% increase from January last year but a 28.86% decline from December’s 97,171 units.

China EV market trends

The CPCA estimated that China’s passenger new energy vehicle wholesale volume reached about 900,000 units in January, up 1% year-on-year but down 42% from December. Demand has been pressured by the start-of-year slow season, a 5% additional purchase tax cost, and uncertainty around the transition of vehicle trade-in subsidies, as noted in a report from CNEV Post.

Market leader BYD sold 210,051 NEVs in January, down 30.11% year-on-year and 50.04% month-on-month, as per data released on February 1. Tesla China’s year-over-year growth then is quite interesting, as the company’s vehicles seem to be selling very well despite headwinds in the market. 

Advertisement

Tesla China’s strategies

To counter weaker seasonal demand, Tesla China launched a low-interest financing program on January 6, offering up to seven-year terms on select produced vehicles. The move marked the first time an automaker offered financing of that length in the Chinese market.

Several rivals, including Xiaomi, Li Auto, XPeng, and NIO, later introduced similar incentives. Tesla China then further increased promotions on January 26 by reinstating insurance subsidies for the Model 3 sedan. The CPCA is expected to release Tesla’s China retail sales and export breakdown later this month.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works

For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.

Published

on

Credit: Michał Gapiński/YouTube

Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions appeared to be dead in the water after a large amount of speculation late last year that the company would add the user interface seemed to cool down after several weeks of reports.

However, it appears that CarPlay might make its way to Tesla vehicles after all, as a recent report seems to indicate that it is still being worked on by software teams for the company.

The real question is whether it is truly needed or if it is just a want by so many owners that Tesla is listening and deciding to proceed with its development.

Back in NovemberBloomberg reported that Tesla was in the process of testing Apple CarPlay within its vehicles, which was a major development considering the company had resisted adopting UIs outside of its own for many years.

Nearly one-third of car buyers considered the lack of CarPlay as a deal-breaker when buying their cars, a study from McKinsey & Co. outlined. This could be a driving decision in Tesla’s inability to abandon the development of CarPlay in its vehicles, especially as it lost a major advantage that appealed to consumers last year: the $7,500 EV tax credit.

Tesla owners propose interesting theory about Apple CarPlay and EV tax credit

Although we saw little to no movement on it since the November speculation, Tesla is now reportedly in the process of still developing the user interface. Mark Gurman, a Bloomberg writer with a weekly newsletter, stated that CarPlay is “still in the works” at Tesla and that more concrete information will be available “soon” regarding its development.

While Tesla already has a very capable and widely accepted user interface, CarPlay would still be an advantage, considering many people have used it in their vehicles for years. Just like smartphones, many people get comfortable with an operating system or style and are resistant to using a new one. This could be a big reason for Tesla attempting to get it in their own cars.

Tesla gets updated “Apple CarPlay” hack that can work on new models

For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.

It holds one distinct advantage over Tesla’s UI in my opinion, and that’s the ability to read and respond to text messages, which is something that is available within a Tesla, but is not as user-friendly.

With that being said, I would still give CarPlay a shot in my Tesla. I didn’t particularly enjoy it in my Bronco Sport, but that was because Ford’s software was a bit laggy with it. If it were as smooth as Tesla’s UI, which I think it would be, it could be a really great addition to the vehicle.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla brings closure to Model Y moniker with launch of new trim level

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

With the launch of a new trim level for the Model Y last night, something almost went unnoticed — the loss of a moniker that Tesla just recently added to a couple of its variants of the all-electric crossover.

Tesla launched the Model Y All-Wheel-Drive last night, competitively priced at $41,990, but void of the luxurious features that are available within the Premium trims.

Upon examination of the car, one thing was missing, and it was noticeable: Tesla dropped the use of the “Standard” moniker to identify its entry-level offerings of the Model Y.

The Standard Model Y vehicles were introduced late last year, primarily to lower the entry price after the U.S. EV tax credit changes were made. Tesla stripped some features like the panoramic glass roof, premium audio, ambient lighting, acoustic-lined glass, and some of the storage.

Last night, it simply switched the configurations away from “Standard” and simply as the Model Y Rear-Wheel-Drive and Model Y All-Wheel-Drive.

There are three plausible reasons for this move, and while it is minor, there must be an answer for why Tesla chose to abandon the name, yet keep the “Premium” in its upper-level offerings.

“Standard” carried a negative connotation in marketing

Words like “Standard” can subtly imply “basic,” “bare-bones,” or “cheap” to consumers, especially when directly contrasted with “Premium” on the configurator or website. Dropping it avoids making the entry-level Model Y feel inferior or low-end, even though it’s designed for affordability.

Tesla likely wanted the base trim to sound neutral and spec-focused (e.g., just “RWD” highlights drivetrain rather than feature level), while “Premium” continues to signal desirable upgrades, encouraging upsells to higher-margin variants.

Simplifying the overall naming structure for less confusion

The initial “Standard vs. Premium” split (plus Performance) created a somewhat clunky hierarchy, especially as Tesla added more variants like Standard Long Range in some markets or the new AWD base.

Removing “Standard” streamlines things to a more straightforward progression (RWD → AWD → Premium RWD/AWD → Performance), making the lineup easier to understand at a glance. This aligns with Tesla’s history of iterative naming tweaks to reduce buyer hesitation.

Elevating brand perception and protecting perceived value

Keeping “Premium” reinforces that the bulk of the Model Y lineup (especially the popular Long Range models) remains a premium product with desirable features like better noise insulation, upgraded interiors, and tech.

Eliminating “Standard” prevents any dilution of the Tesla brand’s upscale image—particularly important in a competitive EV market—while the entry-level variants can quietly exist as accessible “RWD/AWD” options without drawing attention to them being decontented versions.

You can check out the differences between the “Standard” and “Premium” Model Y vehicles below:

@teslarati There are some BIG differences between the Tesla Model Y Standard and Tesla Model Y Premium #tesla #teslamodely ♬ Sia – Xeptemper

Continue Reading